Russia's invasion of neighboring Georgia has raised doubts about the security of oil and gas pipelines that cross through the former Soviet republic and the wisdom of further investment in the transport lines.
The foray also put an emphatic stamp on Russia's growing influence over the region's natural resources and, by proxy, over Europe.
The pipelines, supplying about 1% of the world's daily oil needs, have not been damaged by the fighting, but the prospect of that led pipeline part-owner BP to shut down one of the oil lines as a precaution Tuesday. A second oil export line has been out of commission since last week because of a fire in Turkey.
"The Russians have clearly demonstrated their military capability of getting very close to the pipelines," said Edward Chow, an energy expert at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies. "And they also sent the Black Sea fleet off the Georgian coast, so they also have demonstrated that they can blockade Georgia anytime they want."
The pipelines begin in Azerbaijan and pass through Georgian territory en route to ports on the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, where tankers take the crude mostly to Western Europe.
Chow worries about whether transit lines through Georgia will remain secure in the long run and whether additional foreign investment would be safe. Russia is an energy giant on two continents through the state-controlled Gazprom, its largest company.
Gazprom produces 85% of the nation's natural gas, controls 17% of the world's reserves and is a major supplier to countries across Central Asia and Europe.
Its former chairman, Dmitry Medvedev, was elected Russia's president in March.
For Europeans and others, the routes through Georgia represent a crucial counterbalance to Russia's control over pipelines and energy resources. Some hoped expansion projects throughout Georgia might further loosen Russia's grip over European energy supplies.
Those projects were not far along, Chow said, but in light of Russia's actions, "investors would have to reconsider how attractive those projects are."
James L. Williams, publisher of the Energy Economist newsletter, was blunt about the possible repercussions.
"For Russia, control of Georgia and the pipeline would restore much of its influence over many of the former satellites of the U.S.S.R.," he said. "It would have the clear benefit of increasing Russia's energy chokehold on Europe."
